Tagged: men

On the Mid-Air in DC

Tragic. It is tragic. Utterly tragic.

From a pilot, from your trusted pilot, here’s how this happens.

Firstly, I was taught very early on, “100% of mid-air collisions never see each other.” (If you’re slow—this witty math-based proverb merely implies there are no kamikaze’s.)

Secondly, I have been on flights where the aircraft commander has said, “*Visual* (meaning “I have the traffic/plane/helicopter in sight)” but he DID NOT YET have the traffic in sight. One was in Balad, Iraq, then the second busiest airspace in Earth, and we “split” a formation of Chinooks (which any pilot knows is a clear display of utter incompetence as well as lucky as all hell to have survived). In other words, there is some great temptation to trust the system so completely, trust the “big sky” theory so wholly, trust the historical data of one’s experience that shows every single other time the situation resolves harmlessly so blindly, that you conclude to just “fib” a little (because you will see it ((and avoid it)) in short order) rather than inconvenience anyone. Seriously, the options are A. death or B. inconvenience.

And now they’re all dead.

Lastly, let’s skip to the end—because you faithful deserve the good stuff—the investigation will conclude (correctly) that it was 100% the army pilot’s fault. They may conclude some airspace changes or procedure changes are necessary—but you can’t let that distract you from the actual fault finding. The recording has the army pilot saying, “Have the CRJ in sight.” (You can hear this actual audio for yourself. See this guy at 4:25.)

It’s just tragic.

Re: The Drones. I Told You So!

I was right, naturally, but it wasn’t because I am a pilot. It was because I know how to listen. Here’s the original post that called ya’ll out as suckers. (It’s a pretty funny approach to the subject to me still; read it!)

https://petedeakon.com/2024/12/18/the-drones-are-operated-by-trolls/

And the important words from today, “…were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons. Many of these drones were also hobbyists—recreational and private individuals that enjoy flying drones. In time it got worse due to curiosity.”

I mean, I still feel like a million bucks cuz I was right!—especially because it sounds like I may be the lead writer on the conspiracy theory squad who gave her the script. I literally wrote, “And at this point I would drive out there and have a little fun with the morons, if only I had a drone.” Or as I decided to frame it for the MAGA crowd: “In time, it got worse due to curiosity.”

It’s Like Movie Stars Complaining About Discrimination

As I keep reading essays and books essentially on “the definition of science”, I can’t help asking, “Where does the conflict with religion come in?” I can readily admit that I feel the conflict, but after spending any time in contemplation on the supposed conflict, I resolve everything to, “It’s comparing apples and oranges”. The only conflict is between bad religion and bad science. The real deal of either each stands alone and never the twain shall meet.

This new thought (in the post’s title ⤴️) about the conflict occurred to me just now.

So let me get this straight. The authors of all the mainstream science textbooks that are endlessly promoted and in use (or their conclusions are—which is the same) by all major educational institutions, these authors uniformly decry religion as, in general, something that holds humans back. Or that it stunts the development of knowledge and civilization etc.

Yeah. Okay. I believe you. Just like I believe the claims of millionaire celebrities that they’re victims of discrimination.

Gimme a break.

I, 18CT Colorado Eggs vs. I, Government Commisioner

I am a 18CT Colorado Eggs—the ordinary packaged 18CT Colorado Eggs familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can open their refrigerator door.

I am a Government Commissioner—the ordinary imbecile Government Commissioner familiar to all boys and girls and adults who have come to expect nothing of value from any government official because of their ignominious utterances like the above idea that any economic experience is the result of only one factor.

****

No pencils were harmed in the production of this post. But I can confirm with special and satisfactory delight that three chickens died to make this post possible.

Eureka! Marriage Realities Exposed

I concluded my recent review of Joker: Folie à Deux with the pathetic (full of emotion…) question, “Why do we hurt each other?” Well, just this second the answer came me.

“We hurt each other because we don’t think we do.”

No, I did not just plop into a very full bathtub like ol’ Archimedes. But I am reading a book on the subject of the universe and one of the thematic points is the whole “mostly empty space” thing I mentioned in discussion of Nolan’s script’s mistaken definition of quantum mechanics.

So, if you need an analogy, use this. We hurt each other because we think of each other as mostly empty space. The truth, however, is we are all full. (Wow. That’s fun. No, not “awful”, but we all are full. We are full.) We are filled space. We are space filled full. (Not empty.)

But that’s just a fun physics analogy that may or may not tickle your fancy. Don’t miss the point!

We possess the power to hurt each other unintentionally.

****

PS – For kicks, the actual origin of this Eureka! moment for me is I believe one of my wife’s announced desires is surely destructive to our marriage and family and consequently insist she give it up. Whereas she believes god authored it or approved it or some shit. And as I was reading just now, after I stopped her from randomly starting the dishwasher without my dish in it and saw her eyes say, “Even this action is wrong?”, my mind wandered to the ongoing hellscape of my marriage.

Do you see? Her desire—to her—isn’t harmful to me. And my decree—to me—isn’t harmful to her. But I can assure you, as the nursery rhyme says, “Needles and pins, needles and pins, when a man marries, his trouble begins.”

The best part is Christianity is one of the last forms of order which unequivocally, unconditionally, and without exception places the husband at the very tippy top of the food chain, so much so that even in 21st century conservative, Biblical doctrine, the doctrine is simply avoided. “Why lose even more people by giving unpopular teachings airtime?” seems to be the approved stance.

Incidentally, I even unintentionally started a skirmish in a friend’s marriage (both former international missionaries) by asking them to confirm for me that they were, both 1. Not studying the bible together within their marriage and 2. He is not leading her in any semblance of a formal bible study. I asked them to merely confirm it because a newly converted friend was lamenting to me that his wife (also newly converted) wouldn’t listen to him read scripture to her. And this couple lost their composure in a big way, getting as defensive as I have ever seen—of course the wife being the dominant justifier of the state of things.

I do not know what it is like to be a woman, but I do know what it is like to live under authority. And as it isn’t terrible or tragic or unbearable, I just don’t see the issue.

One Example of Wildly Provocative and Popular, Yet Ultimately Fully Hedged, Speechmaking

President Trump just announced, “As of today it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders—male and female.”

I cannot deny that I found that utterance by the sitting POTUS exhilarating. But I also cannot deny that the assertion is completely hedged and its opponents will not be deterred. A key feature (one that folks somehow forget) of the struggle of good and evil is evil doesn’t play by the rules. The “more than two genders” crowd doesn’t care about the US government’s current policy. They don’t abide by “rules”. They are agents of chaos—by definition.

I don’t say this to discourage or because I am cynical or a pessimist. I am an optimist and this policy is important.

I just want to call attention to the hedge that most listeners didn’t hear. Only the “Official Policy of the United States government” is acting sane at the moment—not all free peoples of the Earth. Trump’s speechwriters knew he doesn’t have power over everything. In this one instance, that is a shame.

Just Finished a Book By Einstein; Christopher Nolan is Wrong

The title of the book is The Evolution of Physics.

Given there is still plenty of daylight, but my brain could use a break, I decided to revisit Nolan’s Oppenheimer. Why not, right?

In it, the woman asks, “Can you explain quantum mechanics to me? It seems baffling.”

Nolan has Oppie answer, “It is.”

He continues, “This glass— This drink— Our bodies— are mostly empty space, groupings of tiny energy waves bound together-”

She interrupts, attention laser focused, “By what?”

“Forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

I do not know where Nolan got his material. I can imagine that he read Oppenheimer’s own writing and deduced this or—cringe—Oppenheimer even said this. I can imagine it, but I don’t believe it.

The problem with that definition is it neglectfully forgets a key point—or two, to be precise.

First, and this is directly from Einstein, it isn’t merely “tiny energy waves” but should say, “empty space, groupings of invisible energy waves.” And second, add “and energy particles”.

In full, and I hope to bring out for us lay folks the full sense of what I read in the clearest possible manner, if defined by Einstein, according the format Nolan introduced, the answer to “What is quantum mechanics?” when asked by a thin woman as a come-on (sapiosexual) at a bar is, “This glass, this drink, our bodies are mostly empty space—groupings of invisible energy waves and energy particles bound together by forces of attraction strong enough to convince us ‘matter is solid’.”

Put shorter—for illustrative purposes because I know this is uncommon—“Our bodies are invisible.”

Paraphrasing Einstein, for this claim to be true and/or accurate (the claim that “‘our bodies are invisible’ is quantum mechanics”) this claim must be tempered with, “when moving near the speed of light and observed indirectly.”

Now. You. Know.

Two Ideas For Books

Whether all experience it, or just certain personalities out of those who get the idea to write, I have learned that in the beginning of the career of unsuccessful writers there is a strong desire to not “let the cat out of the bag” too early. There is a belief that “I have a good idea and it is so good that someone else might profit if I share it before it’s for sale by me.”

But I have been blogging for over a decade now, and helped a few others with their books, and I am convinced that all that is hogwash. Life is just too complicated for a single idea, unaccompanied by the innumerable trappings of fate, to succeed.

To prove this, I share that recently I have had two ideas for books. These are prompted by a desire to somehow manifest that reading the classics has tangible results at a level somewhere below “advance of our civilization”. (Implied- civilization definitionally cannot advance if it is built on lies or ignorance of itself—so read the classics! It’s all at stake!)

Firstly, I want to write a book called “Union” that has a chapter for each, of what I have to believe would be at least twenty, type of artificial union between materials that man has developed. Knots, screws, nails, velcro, glue, epoxy etc. When I write it, the descriptions would be quick reads and informative. But the result would be the perfect contemplative admixture of “so what?” with “if we can figure out mating materials, why can’t we figure out relationships?” I have to believe—contrary to all evidence in my life—that we can figure out human relationship/union.

Secondly, I want to write a book—which may be uber short—which highlights a theme which I have seen in the bios of all the authors in my Great Books of the Western World and companion set Gateway to the Great Books. The theme being, the fact that the authors spent the entirety of their lives learning (as opposed to our deeply unreflective “go to college” mindset) coupled with often epic intellectually-based struggles well into old age. Each chapter may just be one page, often only one sentence. IE Hobbes – Forbid from publishing in his mother country from 70 yrs old to 91 yrs old when he died (don’t quote me, this is from memory and may be wrong on all points). The trick to this book is creating knockout punch sentences without getting repetitive.

****

“Go to college.” Ha. What a joke.

If you want to run with this, do it. I dare ya.

On the Ol’ “Horse Running Beside the Train in which a Horse Moves to the Front” Thought Experiment

I can’t quite remember his name with certainty, but he lived in the house with the green shutters at the tip-top of the hill. He was right across the street from the bus stop.

One day he says “If nothing can move faster than the speed of light, explain this…” Then he gives the supposedly Einstein-derived thought experiment in which you imagine a train moving at the speed of light, inside which is a horse who moves from the back of the train to the front, and then add to this scene a horse beside the train who is pacing the horse in the train.

I took his point to be the classic midwestern point of “Einstein is wrong” sentiment (falling within the broader category of “bein’ smart ain’t nuttin’”), because the horse beside the train is obviously going faster than the speed-of-light train.

But I am working through Einstein’s own The Evolution of Physics and the truth is far different. Whether the kid knew it or not (it is possible I totally misread the moment), the thought experiment is not the one Einstein proposes (at least in this book) but does capture the concept—being relativity. In short, the speed of light is the limit. The horse beside the train is not going faster than the speed of light. This is Einstein’s discovery or theory or whatever you want to call it.

As with all knowledge, it is the presuppositions that matter and the thought experiment is based on the presuppositions of mechanical physics, whereas—it would seem—reality is not. (Reality is not based on mechanical physics—at least not entirely.)

And, yes, like you, I do have a bit of “so what, Albert?” in me. But then I remind myself that the point of my reading is not to “learn to care”, but to learn so that I can call out BS when I see it.

A Short Dream and a Long Dream

What I am calling the short dream was initially not clearly a dream; this is because it happened upon waking. But the falseness of the reality I experienced has to put it in the dream category.

I awoke, as normal, to go to the bathroom. I was at work, and as you know, in a sleeping bag. The particular bag I use is a queen size (really, just two “adam and eve” bags zipped together) and so sometimes while on the twin mattress, I can get oddly wrapped up.

Keep in mind, it’s the middle of the night. And I’m tired.

So I start yanking harder at the silky outside of the bag and unfortunately I feel it tear. I finally make it out, and, glasses-less, zoom in close—in the dark—to confirm that it’s torn. Confirmed. Then the walk to the restroom and back is unremarkable.

As I am laying down to try to resume sleeping asap, I cannot help but look forward to getting a new sleeping bag. Luckily, the excitement abated quickly and I fell asleep again.

Lo and behold, in the morning there was no damage!

Obviously, to my thinking, this dream was unflattering evidence of some kind of addiction to perfectionist shopping—which I am told afflicts nearly all of us. The remarkable part, to me, was how I really couldn’t believe the bag wasn’t torn. Crazy. Moving on.

I’ll keep the long dream’s recap short.

I had pissed off an Indian I work with (feather) and he told his pals and they were coming to kill me. I knew they were coming to kill me because a really fat mutual friend, also a pow-wow Indian, told me. And this friend wanted to help me by arming me to the teeth.

The odd thing about this dream is, like the short dream, I awoke to go potty, knew that it was a dream, wanted to know how it ended, and then fell back asleep and picked it right up again! As it continued, the main action was concentrated on the fat Indian resignedly giving me all sorts of guns as I made small (and weak) talk.

I can tell you it felt real. Like I felt sick to my stomach while I was in the dream and in the bathroom over the fact that I had caused all this nonsense. I also pulled my own weapons cache into the dream and seemed to consider opening it—I’m talking about waking up and opening the gun safe—in case it wasn’t a dream. Powerful, dreams are, no?

Well, the other key feeling the dream was causing or bringing to light was a hefty resignation alongside confusion at the fat Indian’s actions because I knew I couldn’t win. Surely he had to agree, no?

This dream pulls in a lot of disparate parts of my life. The main theme, to me, obviously comes from back in college when I told the blacks that I had been hanging around that we whites told racist jokes and then inquired about any white jokes they might have that were worth sharing. Not a happy group after that. Nor unified. The ones who could take a joke clearly stopped the ones who could not from black on white violence.

Additionally, I have an Indian co-worker, who I have, this time unintentionally—I was trying to find common ground—offended. (Religion, politics, AND immigration are to be avoided at work. Also, the fashion combo of flannel and rat tails is generally not donned by hispanics. Lesson learned.)

Lastly, I am currently reading The Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. In them, he recounts a duel and offers his opinion that he would never let anyone known he was going to kill them—if in fact circumstances led him to conclude that he needed to kill someone. Conversely, if he ever so-offended someone that he learned they were out for his blood, he would do or say, within reason, whatever was necessary to make amends. (I think there was an implied “it could only be a misunderstanding” aspect to this.) My point being that this connects directly to the “resignation” and “sick feeling” part of my dream. Implied was that I knew that a group is unconsolable (different than an individual) and so they were surely going to get their kill—even though I knew in advance.

And obviously we’re all thinking about “do I have enough guns?” all the time. Hehe.

How about you, faithful reader? Anything odd in the head movies to recount? If so, don’t be a stranger. Post it and/or comment below.